Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Agreed. See, we can agree on something.

Haha we have our moments

So, you're William Lane Craig. It all makes sense now!

To move from the ridiculous to the sublime, I never quite wrapped my head around the Cosmological Argument's obvious flaw. If the idea is that the Universe must have God as a creator because nothing can create itself, and God has no creator, then nothing can exist since something must have created God. But we exist, therefore, obviously there is something wrong with the idea that "nothing can create itself." Either it's just wrong, or it's right and it masks another truth about existence, such as the universe has no beginning, or time is a feature of the existing universe and it's meaningless to talk about "before" time, or time wraps around upon itself, or whatever.

That's the thing about religious arguments. Insofar as they purport to be about reality, they aren't, since they are all at the end of the day just ways of rationalizing an ever-less-likely assumption of a divine being. But insofar as they deal with fundamental questions like existence, causality, time, etc, they are amazingly useful since, though themselves false, they open up interesting directions for the exploration of truth. They are like Dr. Watson in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

Oh Billy Craig. His debates are fun to watch because of the contortion he is able to do.
A good answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

LOL, no.

Creationism infers God/Gods was involved.

You may "infer" it from the term, I don't see why it is necessarily implied. Though it is a good philosophical question how something can be created without a Creator, eh?

More seriously, how can a person find the big bang theory plausible on one hand and argue strenuously against a Creator on the other?

Note that there is a significant distinction between a "Creator" and "God" -- the former can be like Johnny Appleseed, in a way, get the Process started and then move on to somewhere else, leaving it to fend for itself. I can easily accept a Creator; the idea that we have a "god" who cares about the quotidian details of my daily life? not so plausible, eh?

I am somewhat partial to the idea that human beings "created" god as an effective practical shortcut to explain why moral behavior is essential to a civilized society.

Now, unless you are truly a believer in the axiom that the only "morality" consists of not getting caught, it seems like one has to accept as a fundamental axiom that moral behavior is a necessary condition for civilization. The concept of "god" is a handy shortcut, useful even if technically not 100% accurate. Even atheists believe in right and wrong, no?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

It's interesting that the concept of days existed prior to the creation of earth. Or did we just calculate the time it took god and attach our calendar system to it afterward?

Why did he need rest? Wouldn't being tired be a form of weakness? I don't want a weak god!

Who knows what the original language actually said? Did he "rest"? or merely set aside a day for reflection and contemplation? What Steven Covey called "sharpen the saw".

Weird how there are seven habits of highly effective people, and seven days in the week, eh?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

More seriously, how can a person find the big bang theory plausible on one hand and argue strenuously against a Creator on the other?

I would guess it would stem from a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory.
If you really care, watch Lawrence Kraus and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI
Or if he is a bit to abrasive, watch Sean Carroll and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ

WLC is a lazy philosopher and grossly misinterprets cosmology to advance his arguments.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I would guess it would stem from a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

Not necessarily, it might merely mean that I find semantic quibbles like this a bit silly: "yeah, something arose out of nothing, but dammed if I'll use the term 'creation'."

"Of course 'right and wrong' matter, even though we all agree on that, let's argue about why they matter anyway."
-- Hey, we just agreed that they do matter, is the "why" really necessary to get along?

I am reminded for some reason of a time I was approached by a Biblical literalist when I had been over-served and said something to him about an article in Paleontology Today (which as far as I know doesn't even exist). Extremists on either side of the debate take themselves too seriously IMHO, "not too much" and "not too little" is a good mid-range place to be in many cases.

(also, "creator" does not necessarily mean "god": I can plant a tree in a field and then go off and let it fend for itself afterward without ever checking in on it again).

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Not necessarily, it might merely mean that I find semantic quibbles like this a bit silly: "yeah, something arose out of nothing, but dammed if I'll use the term 'creation'."

"Of course 'right and wrong' matter, even though we all agree on that, let's argue about why they matter anyway."
-- Hey, we just agreed that they do matter, is the "why" really necessary to get along?

I am reminded for some reason of a time I was approached by a Biblical literalist when I had been over-served and said something to him about an article in Paleontology Today (which as far as I know doesn't even exist). Extremists on either side of the debate take themselves too seriously IMHO, "not too much" and "not too little" is a good mid-range place to be in many cases.

(also, "creator" does not necessarily mean "god": I can plant a tree in a field and then go off and let it fend for itself afterward without ever checking in on it again).

Although I find the topic fascinating, I admit it is very conceptually rigorous. Sean Carroll is probably the best at explaining it so I will leave that to him.

What I would add is that the term "nothing" really falls apart at the level of a singularity. As far as I understand, nothing was created, more transformed and there is no reason to believe this is not a natural process. Metaphors do not work because the reality of those conditions is so foreign to what we experience every day. Quantum mechanics is near impossible to comprehend largely because we evolved to experience the world in a much different way. I have yet to find a serious cosmologist who takes the cosmological argument seriously.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I would guess it would stem from a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory.
If you really care, watch Lawrence Kraus and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI
Or if he is a bit to abrasive, watch Sean Carroll and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ

WLC is a lazy philosopher and grossly misinterprets cosmology to advance his arguments.

I wasn't going to bring up Sean Carroll, but, OK, since you do...

If Fish watches Carroll he's either going to not get it and blithely dismiss him or get it and have an aneurysm and then he'll never post again. In particular, Carroll's information density disproof of any god is so jaw-droppingly slick and (insofar as I can follow the physics, which is about 2/3rds of the way there) open and shut that I would advise science-literate people who want to hold onto their faith to stay the ef away from it. Seriously, guys. You've come this far. You should go with "ignorance is bliss" and play out the string.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I wasn't going to bring up Sean Carroll, but, OK, since you do...

If Fish watches Carroll he's either going to not get it and blithely dismiss him or get it and have an aneurysm and then he'll never post again. In particular, Carroll's information density disproof of any god is so jaw-droppingly slick and (insofar as I can follow the physics, which is about 2/3rds of the way there) open and shut that I would advise science-literate people who want to hold onto their faith to stay the ef away from it. Seriously, guys. You've come this far. You should go with "ignorance is bliss" and play out the string.

Carroll is just awesome. He is smart, his subject matter is approachable, and he comes off as a pretty nice guy while decimating apologists. He is to physics that Steve Novella is to medicine. Their combined debate over the near death experiences is pretty sweet.

I also like Daniel Dennett but he tends to stay away from the spotlight a bit more than others. I will always miss the way Hitch was able to turn a phrase, remember poetry, and be so charmingly arrogant while most likely incredibly intoxicated despite disagreeing with him on many points.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Carroll is just awesome. He is smart, his subject matter is approachable, and he comes off as a pretty nice guy while decimating apologists. He is to physics that Steve Novella is to medicine. Their combined debate over the near death experiences is pretty sweet.

I also like Daniel Dennett but he tends to stay away from the spotlight a bit more than others. I will always miss the way Hitch was able to turn a phrase, remember poetry, and be so charmingly arrogant while most likely incredibly intoxicated despite disagreeing with him on many points.

I would have loved to go drinking with Hitch. I probably agreed with him about 60% on substance and 10% on tactics, but he was a pleasure to watch. And as you alluded he was the Johnny Fever of erudition -- the more he drank, the quicker, sharper, wittier he got.

 

[joecct]

Not necessarily, it might merely mean that I find semantic quibbles like this a bit silly: "yeah, something arose out of nothing, but dammed if I'll use the term 'creation'."

"Of course 'right and wrong' matter, even though we all agree on that, let's argue about why they matter anyway."
-- Hey, we just agreed that they do matter, is the "why" really necessary to get along?

I am reminded for some reason of a time I was approached by a Biblical literalist when I had been over-served and said something to him about an article in Paleontology Today (which as far as I know doesn't even exist). Extremists on either side of the debate take themselves too seriously IMHO, "not too much" and "not too little" is a good mid-range place to be in many cases.

(also, "creator" does not necessarily mean "god": I can plant a tree in a field and then go off and let it fend for itself afterward without ever checking in on it again).

Ah, but how did the tree/seed come to be before you planted it?

 

[burd]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I have heard that much of the early puberty can be attributed to better nutrition (or excess) that was not available in prior generations. I do not think all of it can be chalked up to that but it makes the impact of the other variables at least a bit less scary.

So I'm still checking for curlies every morning because I ate nothing but Cocoa Puffs and mac-and-cheese?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

So I'm still checking for curlies every morning because I ate nothing but Cocoa Puffs and mac-and-cheese?

Early favorite for "Most Disturbing Image on the Cafe."

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Quantum mechanics is near impossible to comprehend largely because we evolved to experience the world in a much different way.

I must have been really lucky, my quantum mechanics professor had a knack for making it accessible. In one of our experiments, we were able to hear individual photons of light hitting a light detector one by one; in another, we saw how the "law of non-contradiction" used in classical logic does not always work in the physical world. [ more below ]

I have yet to find a serious cosmologist who takes the cosmological argument seriously.

The anthropic principle seems a tautology: the universe "had to" develop the way it did or else we wouldn't be here to discuss it.





We did quite a few experiments with optics and lasers. One was incredible. You take filters that polarize light. Put one in front of a beam of light, put another one at right angles to the first further along the beam. No light gets through.
Now take a third filter, at 45[SUP]o[/SUP] to the first two. Put it in front of both or behind both, no light gets through. Put it between the two, and some light does get through. I actually felt a shiver (I think the term is "frisson" ?) when that happened. That was eerie.
Classical logic says that this result is "impossible" yet there it was, right in front of us.

We also did an experiment with electrons that demonstrated "quantum tunneling" in action, that was pretty amazing too.

Another thing that was really eerie is "virtual" particles: the vacuum is not empty, there are particle - anti-particle pairs forming and annihilating all the time within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Every now and then, a passing particle might interact with one of the virtual particles and suddenly the anti-particle becomes real not virtual. We saw a bubble chamber record of one of those events. Really amazing stuff.

One of my friends from college, his father worked at Stanford, building bubble chambers for particle accelerator labs. Talk about a niche job skill!!


A way to find the initial "singularity" accessible to our imagination is to think in terms of "potential energy": it is 100% potential energy. That means at one level it is not "nothing" yet on they physical plane it appears to be "nothing."

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Ah, but how did the tree/seed come to be before you planted it?

Every analogy breaks down at some point if you push hard enough. That's why they are "analogies" and not "explanations."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

The anthropic principle seems a tautology: the universe "had to" develop the way it did or else we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

The anthropic principle itself is so muddy now with so many different "strong," "weak" etc characterizations, which themselves are fought over, that I won't touch it.

But it's nonsense to argue that the present state of the universe must be this way, therefore it can't have been random, therefore there must be a planner. However a random process works out, there is always an outcome. That outcome isn't privileged, it's... random. So appealing to the unlikelihood of that particular outcome is MISSING THE POINT.

Basically, there are two types of people: those who need to assign a purpose to nature and those who are comfortable that purpose is a human construct nature doesn't care about. The gulf is unbridgeable. When the former are scientists they are typically bad scientists, and when the latter are theologians they are typically bad theologians.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

But it's nonsense to argue that the present state of the universe must be this way, therefore it can't have been random, therefore there must be a planner. However a random process works out, there is always an outcome. That outcome isn't privileged, it's... random. So appealing to the unlikelihood of that particular outcome is MISSING THE POINT.

Exactly. Really, really unlikely things happen all the time. I just flipped a (digital) coin 20 times and got HHTT HTTHTTHTHTHHHTTH (10 heads and 10 tails, as it turned out). There's only a 1 in a million probability that I would hit that exact sequence. 1 in a MILLION!!!!! Wow - what an unusual event, right? Actually, yes - yes it is. The fact that nobody would see anything unusual in it demonstrates that we really are used to unlikely things happening all the time.

People who think there must be a planner behind random outcomes must be amazed that anyone ever actually wins a lottery. Yes, that particular person winning really was very unlikely - but it did, in fact, happen, and nobody planned for it to happen that way.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I must have been really lucky, my quantum mechanics professor had a knack for making it accessible. In one of our experiments, we were able to hear individual photons of light hitting a light detector one by one; in another, we saw how the "law of non-contradiction" used in classical logic does not always work in the physical world. [ more below ]

You are correct and I should have been more clear. I think the basic tenants of quantum mechanics are accessible but I have found I can get lost quickly when listening to an expert talk about some of the more difficult manifestations, consequences, and contradictions with other theories.

We did quite a few experiments with optics and lasers. One was incredible. You take filters that polarize light. Put one in front of a beam of light, put another one at right angles to the first further along the beam. No light gets through.
Now take a third filter, at 45[SUP]o[/SUP] to the first two. Put it in front of both or behind both, no light gets through. Put it between the two, and some light does get through. I actually felt a shiver (I think the term is "frisson" ?) when that happened. That was eerie.
Classical logic says that this result is "impossible" yet there it was, right in front of us.

Experiments are pretty awesome to pique interest and drive points home. I still remember seeing sodium thrown into a lake by a chemistry professor during a summer coarse for elementary students. I wonder if I would have similar interests without that.

Another thing that was really eerie is "virtual" particles: the vacuum is not empty, there are particle - anti-particle pairs forming and annihilating all the time within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Every now and then, a passing particle might interact with one of the virtual particles and suddenly the anti-particle becomes real not virtual. We saw a bubble chamber record of one of those events. Really amazing stuff.

I have heard this book is good, approachable read on the topic. Also the previously mentioned Carroll has many lectures on youtube regarding the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468
I would still make the argument that there are very few humans (myself excluded) that can conceive of true nothing. It is such a foreign concept that a tremendous amount of background knowledge is needed to understand the complexity and nuance.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Exactly. Really, really unlikely things happen all the time. I just flipped a (digital) coin 20 times and got HHTT HTTHTTHTHTHHHTTH (10 heads and 10 tails, as it turned out). There's only a 1 in a million probability that I would hit that exact sequence. 1 in a MILLION!!!!! Wow - what an unusual event, right? Actually, yes - yes it is. The fact that nobody would see anything unusual in it demonstrates that we really are used to unlikely things happening all the time.

People who think there must be a planner behind random outcomes must be amazed that anyone ever actually wins a lottery. Yes, that particular person winning really was very unlikely - but it did, in fact, happen, and nobody planned for it to happen that way.

I have read about pretty significant investigations into lottery drawings that had the same numbers two draws in a row. Funny, because given the amount of lotteries that have occurred worldwide, it would be improbable for this not to happen.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

You are correct and I should have been more clear. I think the basic tenants of quantum mechanics are accessible but I have found I can get lost quickly when listening to an expert talk about some of the more difficult manifestations, consequences, and contraindications with other theories.


Experiments are pretty awesome to pique interest and drive points home. I still remember seeing sodium thrown into a lake by a chemistry professor during a summer coarse for elementary students. I wonder if I would have similar interests without that.



I have heard this book is good, approachable read on the topic. Also the previously mentioned Carroll has many lectures on youtube regarding the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468
I would still make the argument that there are very few humans (myself excluded) that can conceive of true nothing. It is such a foreign concept that a tremendous amount of background knowledge is needed to understand the complexity and nuance.

I always found the concepts to be interesting and approachable when spoken in plain English (which isn't always easy to do). It's when the prof inevitably begins vomiting the entirety of the Greek alphabet onto the whiteboard that the eyes begin to glaze over.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

it's nonsense to argue that the present state of the universe must be this way, therefore it can't have been random, therefore there must be a planner.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropic principle. One cannot rebut it: "yeah, even if the universe were really different, we'd still be using our tentacles to push buttons on a symbol generator in order to communicate." or "even if there wasn't enough gravity for planets to coalesce in the first place, we'd still be here anyway."


I posted earlier the about the guy who fell for a con in which he received amazingly accurate predictions week by week, and it turned out that the con men (con people?) had started out with a huge mailing list and sent half the list one prediction and half the list the other prediction week after week, only sending followups to the people who received the correct prediction each time.